tv [untitled] April 11, 2014 1:00am-1:31am PDT
to dance for the rest of their the board of supervisors san francisco land use & economic development committee. i'm scott wiener the chairman of the committee to my right is supervisor jane kim the committee vice chair chair and supervisor cowen and our clerk i know the president to thank sfgovtv specifically jonathan and jennifer lowe madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes. please be advised the
ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices outline documents to be submitted to the clerk and the agenda will be passed to the clerk. >> item one. >> i'm the author of number one colleagues today, we have before us a amendment to the parks code to clarify rights on parkland during the course of recent litigation against the city our parks code has a lack of clarity to exude people from their fences our parks code says anyone to have a permit has inclusive right to use the space and anyone asked to leave must do say you, however, no
distinction so as part of the rights granted by a permit the permit or person can't be removed from a public event without free speech or assembly we have david here 2, 3, 4 from rec and park who is here to answer questions. >> do do you wanted to ask anything. >> supervisor kim. i want to get clarity behind the history. i think last year supervisor wiener and i don't know if this is a question for the author passed legislation on public rights i thought we clarified that language i'm curious maybe to get a little bit more background and clarify between events open to the public >> there's been an ongoing
lawsuit. >> right right. >> and we worked with the city attorney i worked on an amendment last year over concerns of the lawsuit we're going around with an additional amendment mr. gibner. sure john gibner, deputy city attorney. the the lawsuit that gave rise to this piece of legislation was settled last year the board approved the settlement has part of the she means to the departments handling the case agreed to remedy to the board adapting locomotion along the lines of what's before you today so clarify the existing rules about the ability of people who
have permits to be in the parks and their right to exclude others the legislation our referring to supervisor kim that passed last year dealt with free speech zones and that's in union square >> ultimate it turned out there was two areas we needed to address in order not to run afoul of the first amendment we're saying the right to exclude only applies to public event currently it says all event you have the right to exclude but a public event you can only exclude in someone is
interfering say you're having a wedding reception or a corporate event in a public park you have the right to exclude people from coming to your wedding reception we distinguished so i can still have a private event and someone was protest it we work with them within the law for the protests so we're not excluding that right. >> thank you. thank you very much back to the city attorney i want to oolgdz the clarity of the law i know in privately owned property such as the mall the mall actually, the business has the right to exclude people from pamphleting on that site i was occurring how it applies to private events on
public property >> i'm not sure exactly how it lines up with the semi public places like the mall. the issue here is that the current law provides that any permit holder can exclude anyone. and so the southern there that the court expressed and we're handing with the ethnic sixth has expressed other cities ordinances that there are first amendment problems potential problems if a government authors private parties to have the discretion to roach people from public property if public events
basically, it would authorizes the private party to order them removed because of the context of their speech perfectly legitimate to ask people to be removed based on disrupt activities. so this ordinance is lynn us up with the ninth circuit so this is basically a content knoll time and place restriction that applies in the parks >> i understand that for event on public property they're open to the public i'm asking for clarity on the case law for private events for permitted private events what delineates that open to the public via case law? i assume a public event is like
it was the actual event the public red >> it was a performance. >> okay. >> so that was open to the public. >> but that openic red is an example of a permit event for the public they get for the public grounds i ask your delineating between that and a public fundraiser why we're allowed to make that differentiation via the law. >> i'm not sure i, answer our question other than the case is authorized that distinction. >> which case. >> i don't have cases off the top of my head but there are ninth circuit case issues and
basically, i think kind of as a common sense distinction the distinction is between an event that is purely private even though it's on public property you want to allow the permit tests to control the event whose coming out and who's not invited the permit at the can exclude that person as opposed to an event open to the public wiper to make sure everyone is welcome regardless of the speak. >> what if the private permit at the i want to make sure we're doing the right thing because there is litigation but i get it in an event open to the public it's possible for the permit at the to discriminate whether or
not they agree you're allowed to speak over and over not but that's itself issue we'll you think up guns but technically that can happen on an event only open by permit; right? >> we did that language it shall not be allowed to take part that was carved out as part of the negotiation. >> it's one thing if you permit it off speech but a distinction is between that and the permit person gets to pick do you understand my question. >> not entirely. i see the issue prohibiting free speech your iga the permit
popcorn who can have free speech you're giving them that discretion how is that different in a private event where a permit person can see whose speech a allowed at the event. it's pertaining ail free speech >> i think the if one acceptance the notation that public can lease out whether it's part of city hall to hold a private reception or event or someone having their wegsd in a public building one expectation you can lease public space for private events i think it's explicit that you can have
control over the event for example, if an example off the top of my head if two men decided to get married and the clubhouse or whatever it's called and, you know, there is some inherent public thing around marriage i don't think it would probably be all agree they wouldn't be allowed to allow anti marriage quality people to attend and stand up next to the person with a sign saying, you know, marriage equality is terrible. so - >> i completely understand but i want to understand the delineation better. >> i - >> understand why there's a
delineation. >> i'd be happy to follow up afterward but at this point we crafted this legislation following the settlement or leading up to the settlement with the ninth circuit case law in mind and address the concerns in mind and, of course, the city's policy is for allowing people fingertip to hold private events is a content neutral policy but again happy to follow up with you after the meeting. >> okay. thank you everyone. seeing no further comments open this up for public comment any public comment on item one
seeing none, public comment is closed. so colleagues if there are no further questions or comments can i have a motion to forward that without recommendation >> i think it's helpful to have the information before the committee thank you. >> thank you. we will take that motion we'll take that without objection. okay madam clerk and we've been joined by supervisor mar who's the author supervisor mar can he call items two and three together >> it's approving the ground water well in golden gate park and item 3 is the adaptation of the signage related to the ground water supply project. >> okay supervisor mar.
>> thank you chair wiener and colleagues i'm here with state of risky with the public utilities commission to urge support for two resolution that will help san francisco diverse the water system. the first system adapts the sequa finding for the project and the second approves the construction of the well facility in golden gate park. through the project has been in the works for some. i thank the public utilities commission staff for their hard work it's important to break ground with water drought on record developing the water supply is an important strategy during the drought. the project will install up to 6 deep ground water wells on the west side of city.
ground water from those wells will be mixed with our own hetch hetchy water in the reservoirs and when the project is complete that sta that state diversity 4 million gallons per day. the project will help us reduce our depends on on importing water especially during an earthquake or other major indicate fizz. this legislation will help to insure that all san franciscans will have clean water drinking water that's been a priority for my office i thank the public utilities commission. so steve will further describe the project and presented a minor project as well
>> thank you, supervisor for the kind words. if you have any questions i thank members and supervisors it's important as supervisor mar mentioned we're here to talk about two pieces of legislation that we need to implement the approving the construction for the ground water well, and adapting the sequa finding are monitor program and i'm directing the clerk to invite the actions and it will be implemented in two phases the sequa portion covers the entire project and the golden gate park is for one phase per we'll have to come back to the board with two new fats in phase two of the
project. we'll bring up the slides you have a hardcopy so refer i can go to the hardcopy is that acceptable >> sure. the second slide 12k50i89d san francisco project overview that lays out the project in san francisco. the complete project will install 6 deepwater wells on the west side of the city. the ground water will be mixed with the hetch hetchy regional supply the sunset and suzette are a reservoir and it will be distributed over a large portion of the city the blue area will receive a blend of hetch hetchy water so not everyone in the city will receive it but it's not focused in one community but
wide leely throughout san francisco are that will diverse that by 4 million gallons a day interest to make sure it's operating right one million gallons per day and then ramping up. this approach allows us to justify. we're pumping ground water into a coastal area if you petroleum too much you'll suck in seawater so we want to took as much as we can without causing problem >> is there any danger of seawater. >> yes. this is perfectly save water it's high quality and, in fact, i've been to the san
francisco water supply but it was abandoned because the hetch hetchy was available but we've learned over time to be prepared for emergencies an important. >> if we turn to slide 3 it lays out the project facilities there are 6 there. the buildings in the upper right is the golden gate park it's the subject of today's discussion in keeping with the golden gate park master plan it will serve as an back up eir gas station for the park it was profound and recommended the board approve the construction of that this building. the building below it on the right-hand side is the one well station that's close to the historic window it is because of the adjacent facility it need to
be in keeping with that facility >> and this is the windmill that's closer to the - >> south side. >> ceda. >> on the fourth slide we talk about the quality of the source the ground water is safe we've monitored it since 2000 a small quantity of ground water will mix in our reservoir so 10 percent is what shows up at peoples taps. we questioned all the water that supplies all the standards and continue to monitor the supply. in fact, the taste tests around the city very few people can tell the difference between
hetch hetchy mixed with ground water on the fifth slide from the public outreach effort it's been going on since 2007 we use the utility newsletter the planning department has generated a lot of this information and a lot of community outreach and the sampling which ground water the photo on the right is a community outreach and the san francisco giants the project manager has devociferated years in pushing this project forward to begin construction this year. this legislation is important as supervisors noted we're committed to expanding our portfolio we have to be ready for the future and adding the
ground water into that is important it's local and increase the overall system and will be available during emergencies we'll have emergency water here in san francisco that's totally under your control. the time limit we're in a drought we're asking our customers to reduce their used by 10 percent and bringing on alternative supplies is very important each of our wholesale customers can do that kind of thing that will help in the drought. and just to note earlier the board approved the resolution introduced by supervisor breed you're going the state legislator for those kinds of projects we'll be looking for state fund it will supply water.
so with want to ask for the file it will add a further resolve we further resolve that the city has the project in motion number 9.52 with a amendment we'll remedy that you pass into items to the 41 full board with recommendation. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and we just got it up in time for the last slide to reach the screen >> supervisor mar. thank you very much to mr. risky and the staff >> great. thank you very much. okay. at this point, we'll open up items two and three.
seeing none, public comment is closed. and could i get a motion colleagues to forward items two and three >> on the amendment. >> i'm sorry on the amendment as articulated that's to two only. >> that's item two yes. >> so the item as described by mr. ricky colleagues can i can r get another motion to accept we'll take that without objection.. can i get a motion to forward to the full board we'll take that without objection. >> i've been advised it's item 3. >> then what let's get a motion to resend the motion to forward and the motion to amend we'll take that without objection. it's to amend the motion as